Peter Dimov wrote:
I think that the default behavior on a sequence of two saves with the same address should be to write the two objects, as if address tracking isn't on. If later a pointer to that address is saved, an exception should occur. Or more generally,
- one value save, then N pointer saves sharing the same address should be OK;
- M pointer saves sharing the same address should be OK; (*)
- K value saves sharing the same address should be OK and result in K copies in the archive;
Currently you'll only get one copy for this case unless you suppress tracking.
- all other sequences raise an exception at first opportunity.
Is there any reasonable use case which is prohibited by the above rules?
(*) This promotes questionable coding practices but is consistent with the current behavior. :-)
Accept as noted above, that's how it works now.
...
If you change the default behavior to handle these cases, while still allowing previous uses to work as they did, you will no longer need to trap anything. Which is why I proposed one possible default behavior that seems to fit that description, and asked you whether it sounds reasonable.
Actually I realize now that I mis-spoke. Default tracking behavior is "track selectively". That means that a value saves are tracked only if a object of the same type is anywhere serialized through a pointer. I believe that the current behavior matches your preference as described above. Robert Ramey